[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Rule: 98 Built In Types
Should we be masking the datatypes to protect against any future changes in definitions or other technologies? For instance xsd:boolean allows 0/1 and true/false - do all languages implement boolean this way? Will another XML schema language define boolean this way, or will it add yes/no? I would suggest adopting and specifying the UBL definition of the datatypes (for now they might be exactly what is in schema), but we don't use the schema types directly. So I would defined a ubl:Boolean that restricts xsd:boolean and then use ubl:Boolean everywhere instead of xsd:boolean. I belive in the long run this will be a useful "protection" from technology change. ..dan At 10:05 AM 7/15/2003 -0500, Lisa-Aeon wrote: >Rules for Voting: Each email will have only one rule in it, I will try to >mark the rules that group with it, or rules that might duplicate it. The >membership has 5 working days to bring forth objection or discussion, after >the 5 working days, if there are no objections, the rule will be assumed to >be "ACCEPTED" and be given to the LCSC for their implementation. > >Please Reply leaving first email in Reply. > >Voting period on this rule ends: July 22, 2003 > >******************************* >[R 98] Built-in Simple Types SHOULD be used wherever possible. > > >ATG Decision: ACCEPTED. > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 7/8/2003
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]